Rajnath Singh’s statement “Because of the rampant misuse of the word (secularism), there have been instances of tension in the society” was second most hilarious thing I have heard this week. The biggest misuse in recent times has been of words ‘Hinduism’ and quote ‘Bhartiya Sanskriti’ (the phrase never stops being funny) – we all know who is misusing them.
Rajnath Singh also hold credits for the third most hilarious statement – that BR Ambedkar had never thought of putting the term ‘secularism’ in the Preamble as it was “in-built in the Indian system”. I mean, if it was in-built, the amendment only made it more explicit – far easier to understand. Right? Why is so much concerned about it? To think that this guy is our Minister of Home affairs!
The statement topping the list of hilarious statements of the week was, of course, when N. Modi announced a ‘debate’ on increasing incidences of intolerance. I mean what is supposed to mean by word ‘debate’ – is he denying any increase in incidences? Or, whether or not his government will take any actions? Ask him any questions and his answers are obscure party slogans; you will never see him talking in terms of specific actions his party is taking in this regard. His speech on 28th was far better than all Kapil Sharma’s performances.
And, also, are our politicians clever enough to be able to’debate’? Did he forget that it involves intellectual effort?
And, why are both the parties trying to claim Ambedkar? Seriously how can anyone claim his legacy?
When Rajnath Singh said Ambedkar didn’t want ‘secularism’ in the constitution, why didn’t no one remind him that Ambedkar had converted to Buddhism discarding the very Hinduism that their beloved RSS is trying to promote? To quote Ambedkar himself:
“I was born a Hindu because I had no control over this, but I shall not die a Hindu.”
Also, he was a human rights activist; who had fought for rights of weak – Dalits, women etc. and would have been highly critical of the incidences of increasing intolerance in the country. Above all, he was wise enough to say:
“If I find the constitution being misused, I shall be the first to burn it.”
(I have always respected Ambedkar, but this statement has made him a personal hero.)
Regarding, another word Modi’s government has hated – socialism. This is what Amedkar had to say when India became the republic:
“…we are going to enter into a life of contradictions. In politics, we will have
equality and in social and economic rights, we will have inequality…. We must remove
this contradiction or else who suffer from this inequality will blow up the
Sounds pretty socialist to me.
Now, about ‘secularism’. Secularism is defined as is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institutions and religious dignitaries. The opposite of Secularism is religious. A government that is not secular must submit to what will be called a state-religion – like Pakistan is an Islamic state and United Kingdom is a christian state.
If India was to be a religious state, it would be a Hindu state – and given how much Ambedkar hated Hinduism, he would have died fighting against any step in that direction. Our founding-fathers were very, very, very clear on this subject.
Also, Ambedkar didn’t single-handedly drafted the constitution. I’m mentioning this because it is exactly the kind of impression being formed – and, Ambeddkar would have denounced such a claim himself. He was the chairman of constitution drafting committee – he was the biggest contributor, perhaps the most superior one but not the only contributor. Had he complete control, he could probably gone for complete socialism.
While we are on the subject, he was against ‘Article 370’ – One will like to ask what has either of the parties done in that direction? (This is mere an argument. I’m not against or in favor of the article, I’m no Kashmiri to decide.)
Above all, you need not do something just because Ambedkar said it. He was a rebel – and would have expected his followers to rebel against injustice. No, Mr. Rajnath SIngh, he didn’t suffered injustice; he revolted and fought back.
That none of these things relate to what is said in two days goes on to show that neither side knew what they were talking about – it goes on to show the level of, What Mr. Modi so liberally called, ‘debate’.
I don’t think that Ambedkar could have approved of present condition of the country. He might not have burned the constitution, but he would definitely have thrown these politicians out of parliament – much like Jesus threw out priests who had made the church a ‘robber’s den’. Unlike Jesus, he would have wept.